Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation

Percy,The problem that I am having with this line of argument is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of Evolutionary theory on your side. So fundamental that I consider a part of basic knowledge that is needed to even engage in this debate.It starts with the Fact that Darwin and Mendel were not in agreement and population genetics, for all intents and purposes, did not exist. So a synthesis of these important ideas had to made.Hardy and Weinberg in 1908 form the basis of population genetics.T. Dobzhanzky in 1937 combines Systematics (Taxonomy) and genetics in his work Genetics and Origin of Species. Ernst Mayr does the same thing in 1942 in Systematics and the Origin of Species.George Gaylord Simpson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution finished off the synthesis of Darwinism and Genetics in 1944And last and certain not the least.
The most recent addition from the Huxley clan. Sir Julian Huxley wrote Evolution: The Modern Synthesis in 1944. If your not going to read any thing else, read this. It is very clear that they had no clue about horizontal mechanisms.Thus, once again, the Modern Synthesis was clearly formed before 1945.Some horizontal elements:
Foriegn transposons were not known before Same genome transposons which was discovered in 1951.Symbiosis involvement in Prokaryote/Eukaryote development could not be understood before Jacob, Lwoff, and Monod shared the Nobel Prize for their discoveries concerning the genetics of prokaryotes and the Operon theory in 1966.Also, speaking of 1966. Lewontin writes his major Neutralist work in 66 and in 1971 Kimura's Theoretical Aspects of Population Genetics placed him in the neutralist school along with Lewontin on interpretations of polymorphism. So once again 1966 and 1971 are after 1944.Now, the forerunner of the Argument between Gould and the Current Synthetic theory comes from the New version of the Synthetic theory clarified by T. Dobzhansky's in 1977. This is the same guy from 1937. And this might be the center of you guys confusion. This begins the the new thought AKA The current synthesis or The Unification of Current Evolutionary theories or simple The synthetic theory.This site and many other on your side are simply 57 years behind on terminology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.htmlRead the Moran article again. It's about the fact that people make these sort of mistake all the time with Neodarwinism and the term Modern Synthesis. However, the creator of this website and this article makes the horrible mistake of confusing the Modern Synthesis, the theory from the 30s and 40s, and the Synthetic theory or The Current Synthesis or The New synthesis or The Current Unification of Evolutionary theories.What ever you call it, you must understand why this argument is so annoying to me. I proved my point. It's extremely fundamental, but it is big mistake that your side always makes. That's why I argued it.Once again, one could call a theory that included Newton's Law of motion and Einstien General and Specific theories of Relativity simply the Law of Motion. You would be semantically correct, but scientifically utterly wrong.Read the Moran article and see an interesting quoting mistake. The Futyama quote appears to be referring to the Modern Synthesis correctly. Futyama writes:"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were ... " Be observant. He is talking in the past sense. If he was claiming that the Modern Synthesis is the Current Synthesis, it would say that The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis are, in the present sense. Even his use of the word "then" confirms this.But the major confusion lies in Larry Moran's introductory sentence to the quote. He writes "Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis" They are never correctly referred to as the Modern Synthesis and to my knowledge Futyama does not make this mistake anywhere in his textbook on Evolutionary Biology. Once again, the disconnect between what Larry claims and what Futyama is saying is quite apparent in their change of tenses. If you do not realize that Larry Moran is just completely errant in his knowledge of the History of Evolutionary theories, you easily miss the discrepancy.Now, I have given you the major books that together form the basis of the Modern Synthesis. Finally, once again Note most of your sides Web Sites that I have discoved are incorrect of this fact because the authors so skilled in debating Young earth literal biblical christian fundamentalism that they do not seem to have taken the time become aware of the fundamentals of Evolutionary Theory.I really can not convince you of this argument any more. It really is becoming an exercise in futility. I mean, for you to deny my argument this time. Would require you to deny the architects of the Modern Synthesis. And most importantly, Sir Julian Huxley, writer of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis in 1944. He popularized and was most responsible for coining the term in the public mind. It's like coming up with a different way of using the term Natural Selection without Darwin or my popular example attempting to divorce the Law of Motion from Newton. All semanticall possible, but scientifically just wrong and dishonest.

Percy,Thanks for your last post. I could see that your being objective.You even referred to my Eukaryote origin point.A problem I am having. I provided four references in my last post. According to the Rules of debate web sites are not the only valid reference. I provided the four cornerstone books on the topic.One of my references called Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, by Sir Julian Huxley in 1944, is the book and the main scientist that coined the term in the public mind.Once again, I expressed my argument quite clearly. You can not add an entirely different set of mechanisms to a theory and claim that it is the same theory.Part of what your saying is my very argument. If synthetic theory is the unification of Mendellian Genetics and Darwinism (and actual population genetics). Then how can Horizontal mechanism be a part of it. Since horizontal mechanism are not a part of Mendellian Genetics, Darwinism, and Population genetics. And you must see, that the Eukaryote origin simply can not fit into the paradigm.The point remains that your side is making a semantic claim and the history of evolutionary theory simply does not agree with it. Horizontal mechanism were not a part of the Modern Synthesis.How can I prove that something is not a part of the synthesis? What would actually prove the point other than the actuall history of Evolutionary theory? I have no where else to go.You are not convinced by my analysis of Futyama. Where does Futyama say that their is no Current synthesis?Finally, could you reread my analysis of larry's previous arguments in the debate in post 31 in this thread and argue that Larry and I were not in fact using the same definition of Modern Synthesis.Also Finally, in my post 27, I refer to one of Larry's quotes that completely defines the argument the way I do.Could you please reread these post. I believe not only do they summarize the past inconsistency in your sides argument nicely, It provides the evidence you are looking for. Evidence that your side already provided."The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. It is not just one single hypothesis (or theory) with its corroborating evidence, but a multidisciplinary body of knowledge bearing on biological evolution, an amalgam of well-established theories and working hypotheses, together with the observations and experiments that support accepted hypotheses (and falsely rejected ones), which jointly seek to explain the evolutionary process and its outcomes. These hypotheses, observations, and experiments often originate in disciplines such as genetics, embryology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and molecular biology. Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. This is still expanding, just like the "holding" business corporations that have grown around an original enterprise, but continue incorporating new profitable enterprises and discarding unprofitable ones."pg 7961.
Ayala, Francisco J. and Walter M Fitch. "Genetics and the origin of species: An Introduction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA Vol 94 7691-7697. July 1997.Once again, Between my past posts that I have reintroduced with references, this reference, and Sir Julian Huxley's book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, How many times must I prove my argument?